Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due." [51]

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

The boldface made me think of the case of Pope Adrian V, who has also come up, e.g.:

-Adrian V: Even if your argument were correct (It isn't) your example would still fail. In order to become Pope, one must be invested with the Pallium.

There was evidently no pallium in the early centuries:"According to the "Liber Pontificalis", it was first used in the first half of the fourth century."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11427a.htmAre you saying that none of the first 33 "popes" were popes? Then you have bigger problems than first thought.

Are you sedevantist, saying that because the last three popes were not coronated, that they were not popes?

The cardinals swore loyalty to Pope Benedict of the Vatican right after his election. They did not wait until his inaugral mass.

Again,the Ultramontanist claims made for deacons like Hilary, combined with this insistence that the papacy is not an order, pulls the rug under the "lack of episcopal character" as an excuse.

On the issue of "constitutional crisis" it is not crisis whatsoever. The means for electing a Pope do not need to be set by a Pope. Indeed, the original basis of the current means was not set by any Pope, but by the Second Council of Lyon.

When a Pope lays down a constitution, like Pope Gregory X did, and another annulls it, as Pope Adrian V did, it's big deal. What you argue would be like insisting that John McCain is the Vice President of the United States, since he got the next highest votes, as we are free to ignore the XII Amendment.

The problem for deposing of Pope Adrian V on saying he wasn't consecrated yet has the problem that Ultramontanists claim many non-bishops, e.g. the deacon Hilary at Ephesus II, exercising those supreme powers of the pontificate. Why couldn't a pontiff-elect, especially, for instance, where a non-bishop such as Pope Adrian V nullified "the sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) [which] is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon," i.e. the decree of Pope Gregory X, to which "Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world."

And if it is so important to be consecrated bishop to take the pontificate, how can it be claimed it is just an "office" (whatever that means) and not a supra-order of the clergy?

Related problems:

vacant sees, even patriarchal sees, do not present a problem in Orthodoxy, as the Orthodox episcopate operates as an ontological whole, and so can hold any see in trust and preserve its apostolic succession. For a Petrine succession of the pontificate, who holds it in trust?

multiple bishops to one see, though uncanonical, can be corrected by the ontological whole of the Orthodox episcopate by economia. Not even rival bishops in a schism, e.g. SS EP Ignatius and Photios, present a problem. Not so two supreme pontiffs. Hence the necessary invention, alongside the pontificate, of the anti-pope, some of which present problems: "antipope" Dioscoros was validly elected, whereas "Pope" Boniface II was not. Then there is this note:

Quote

In the list of popes given in the Holy See's annual directory, Annuario Pontificio, the following note is attached to the name of Pope Leo VIII (963–965):

At this point, as again in the mid-eleventh century, we come across elections in which problems of harmonising historical criteria and those of theology and canon law make it impossible to decide clearly which side possessed the legitimacy whose factual existence guarantees the unbroken lawful succession of the successors of Saint Peter. The uncertainty that in some cases results has made it advisable to abandon the assignation of successive numbers in the list of the popes.[2]

This is on top of the problem of how the inferiors elevate their superior, contrary to Heb. 7:7.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 11:59:24 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As long as you are unwilling to look at how the Church understands these things then you have neither a question, nor can you ever hope to find an answer save that of your own making. I could do that with every element in my life, but the life that I would construct from my own understandings would be absolutely incommunicable to anyone else.

As long as you set the standards, criteria and practice and all interpretive elements appurtenanced thereunto...You have nothing more than a monologue.

It is impossible for any of us to really discuss any of our realities with you.

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due." [51]

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

The boldface made me think of the case of Pope Adrian V, who has also come up, e.g.:

-Adrian V: Even if your argument were correct (It isn't) your example would still fail. In order to become Pope, one must be invested with the Pallium.

There was evidently no pallium in the early centuries:"According to the "Liber Pontificalis", it was first used in the first half of the fourth century."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11427a.htmAre you saying that none of the first 33 "popes" were popes? Then you have bigger problems than first thought.

Are you sedevantist, saying that because the last three popes were not coronated, that they were not popes?

The cardinals swore loyalty to Pope Benedict of the Vatican right after his election. They did not wait until his inaugral mass.

Again,the Ultramontanist claims made for deacons like Hilary, combined with this insistence that the papacy is not an order, pulls the rug under the "lack of episcopal character" as an excuse.

On the issue of "constitutional crisis" it is not crisis whatsoever. The means for electing a Pope do not need to be set by a Pope. Indeed, the original basis of the current means was not set by any Pope, but by the Second Council of Lyon.

When a Pope lays down a constitution, like Pope Gregory X did, and another annulls it, as Pope Adrian V did, it's big deal. What you argue would be like insisting that John McCain is the Vice President of the United States, since he got the next highest votes, as we are free to ignore the XII Amendment.

The problem for deposing of Pope Adrian V on saying he wasn't consecrated yet has the problem that Ultramontanists claim many non-bishops, e.g. the deacon Hilary at Ephesus II, exercising those supreme powers of the pontificate. Why couldn't a pontiff-elect, especially, for instance, where a non-bishop such as Pope Adrian V nullified "the sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) [which] is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon," i.e. the decree of Pope Gregory X, to which "Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world."

And if it is so important to be consecrated bishop to take the pontificate, how can it be claimed it is just an "office" (whatever that means) and not a supra-order of the clergy?

Related problems:

vacant sees, even patriarchal sees, do not present a problem in Orthodoxy, as the Orthodox episcopate operates as an ontological whole, and so can hold any see in trust and preserve its apostolic succession. For a Petrine succession of the pontificate, who holds it in trust?

multiple bishops to one see, though uncanonical, can be corrected by the ontological whole of the Orthodox episcopate by economia. Not even rival bishops in a schism, e.g. SS EP Ignatius and Photios, present a problem. Not so two supreme pontiffs. Hence the necessary invention, alongside the pontificate, of the anti-pope, some of which present problems: "antipope" Dioscoros was validly elected, whereas "Pope" Boniface II was not. Then there is this note:

Quote

In the list of popes given in the Holy See's annual directory, Annuario Pontificio, the following note is attached to the name of Pope Leo VIII (963–965):

At this point, as again in the mid-eleventh century, we come across elections in which problems of harmonising historical criteria and those of theology and canon law make it impossible to decide clearly which side possessed the legitimacy whose factual existence guarantees the unbroken lawful succession of the successors of Saint Peter. The uncertainty that in some cases results has made it advisable to abandon the assignation of successive numbers in the list of the popes.[2]

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.

And as I said before, one of the things Orthodoxy really needs to admit to herself is that some bishops are more equal than others, and perhaps rightly so for the good health of the body. At that point of enlightenment, then it may be possible to see more similarities than differences between our two Churches. As long as Orthodoxy holds up the ideal of one bishop-one vote as the ONLY measure of real power in the Church, and nurtures congregationalist aspirations, then Orthodoxy will remain blind to her own internal realities...

Oh Father, I think that if we dig deeply enough into the realpolitik of Orthodoxy, we'd find that some bishops are more equal than others...in fact I am certain that is in fact the reality for Orthodoxy.

Oh Father, I think that if we dig deeply enough into the realpolitik of Orthodoxy, we'd find that some bishops are more equal than others...in fact I am certain that is in fact the reality for Orthodoxy.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Being the Successor to St. Peter is a position (or an office). The order is bishop. What does this really have to do with anything?

Explaining how the bishop of Antioch, successor to St. Peter on his first throne, lacks the charisms of infallibility and universal direct and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church that your supreme pontiff in the Vatican claims, and how the latter gets them.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Being the Successor to St. Peter is a position (or an office). The order is bishop. What does this really have to do with anything?

Explaining how the bishop of Antioch, successor to St. Peter on his first throne, lacks the charisms of infallibility and universal direct and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church that your supreme pontiff in the Vatican claims, and how the latter gets them.

Being the Successor to St. Peter is a position (or an office). The order is bishop. What does this really have to do with anything?

Explaining how the bishop of Antioch, successor to St. Peter on his first throne, lacks the charisms of infallibility and universal direct and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church that your supreme pontiff in the Vatican claims, and how the latter gets them.

Easy. St. Peter was martyred in Rome...not Antioch.

Then why does Antioch have precedence over Jerusalem, the site of Christ's crucifixion (something He emphasizes, Luke 13:33), the martyrdom of St. Stephen the Protomartyr and St. James the Brother of God (whose cathedra was the first, and long time only one called "the Throne," the Throne of his father David, the succession of Patriarchs fulfilling the promise to David on earth of an everlasting throne), whereas St. Peter, St. Paul (the other founder of the Church of Antioch), and their successor at Antioch, St. Ignatius, all died at Rome and not Antioch? Who consecrated Antioch's rank as third in all the Church?

From a Catholic perspective, the founding of the Church of Rome by St. Peter is not what ties his ministry to that Church (since he also founded the Church at Antioch), but rather it is his martyrdom at Rome which does. This is the reason why you will often hear Catholics emphasize connection with the faith of the Holy Apostles being associated with Full Communion with the See of Rome because of it being quite literally a sacred place.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Then why does Antioch have precedence over Jerusalem, the site of Christ's crucifixion (something He emphasizes, Luke 13:33), the martyrdom of St. Stephen the Protomartyr and St. James the Brother of God (whose cathedra was the first, and long time only one called "the Throne," the Throne of his father David, the succession of Patriarchs fulfilling the promise to David on earth of an everlasting throne), whereas St. Peter, St. Paul (the other founder of the Church of Antioch), and their successor at Antioch, St. Ignatius, all died at Rome and not Antioch? Who consecrated Antioch's rank as third in all the Church?